Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Earthquake Hazard Impact and Urban Planning pp 127–149Cite as

Spatial Multi-Criteria Risk Assessment of Earthquakes from Bucharest, Romania

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Environmental Hazards ((ENHA))

Abstract

The current paper is a piece of exploratory research, having as its purpose the evaluation of seismic risk spatial patterns for Bucharest, the capital of Romania. In this paper, risk (expressed in terms of risk indices) is calculated as a combination of hazard and vulnerability information, based on the semi-quantitative technique of multi-criteria spatial analysis. The scale of analysis was considered at the level of the census units (2002). The hazard component consists of the probability of occurrence of two scenarios: (1) an occurred earthquake that is a typical hazard case for the Vrancea region (event of 30 August 1986, Mw = 7.1) and (2) a computed seismic hazard for the largest magnitude earthquake expected to be generated in Vrancea (Mw = 7.7). In both cases, the seismic hazard is expressed in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) values. The total vulnerability index is obtained using four groups of indicators: natural environment, physical, social and economical indicators. The overall vulnerability to seismic hazard is assessed by comparing total vulnerability with the compound capacity factor. The resulting risk indices are relative, expressed by numerical values, ranging between 0 and 1, that do not have a direct meaning of expected losses. The spatial pattern of risk shows a significant increase in the case of the maximum expected event as compared with the 1986 earthquake case, particularly in the central part of the city. As a general conclusion, only the strongest earthquakes are really dangerous for Bucharest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abella CEA, Westen van CJ (2007) Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba using spatial multi-criteria evaluation. Landslides 4:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (2000) Confronting Catastrophe—New Perspectives on Natural Disasters. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 282

    Google Scholar 

  • Arion C, Vacareanu R, Lungu D (2004) WP10- Application to Bucharest, RISK-UE. An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. At ftp.brgm.fr/pub/Risk-UE

    Google Scholar 

  • Armaş I (2012) Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0209-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai J (2001) Notes on the analytic hierarchy process. In Proceedings of the NSF Design and Manufacturing Research Conference, Tampa, Florida (pp 1–6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kulwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P, Cannon T et al (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London etc., Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolin R, Stanford L (1998) The northridge earthquake: vulnerability and disaster. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollin C, Cárdenas C, Hahn H, Vatsa KS (2003) Natural Disaster network; Disaster Risk management by Communities and Local Governments, Washington, d.C.: Inter-American Development Bank

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollin C, Hidajat R (2006) Community-based disaster risk index: pilot implementation in Indonesia. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards-towards disaster resilient societies. UNU-Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonjer KP, Grecu B, Rizescu M, Radulian M, Sokolov V, Mandrescu M, Lungu D, Moldoveanu T (2003) Assessment of site effects in downtown Bucharest by recording of ambient noise, moderate and large intermediate depth earthquakes from vrancea focal zone, Proceedings Int. Conf. Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Reduction, 24–26 Oct., 2002, Bucharest, Romania

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostenaru Dan M (2006) Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umsetzbarkeit von Gebäudeverstärkungsmaßnahmen zur Erdbebenertüchtigung. Grundlagen und Lösungsansatz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Situation in Bukarest, Rumänien [Applicability and economic efficiency of building strengthening measures for seismic retrofitBasics and solution approach under special consideration for the situation in Bucharest, Romania] http://www.shaker.de/de/content/catalogue/index.asp?lang=de&ID=8&ISBN=978-3-8322-5727-9Shaker, Aachen

  • Cardona OD (2003) Indicators for Disaster Risk Management. First Expert Meeting on Disaster Risk Conceptualization and Indicator Modelling. Manizales, March 2003. http://idea.manizales.unal.edu.co/ProyectosEspeciales/adminIDEA/CentroDocumentacion/DocDtales/documentos/01%20Conceptual%20Framework%20IADBIDEA%20Phase%20I.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2006

  • Carver SJ (2011) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 5(3):321–339. doi:10.1080/02693799108927858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang SE (2010) Urban disaster recovery: a measurement framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Disasters 34(2):303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crichton D (1999) The risk triangle. In: Ingleton J (ed) Natural disaster management. Tudor Rose, London, pp 102–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 82:242–260. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson R (1997) An Urban earthquake Risk Index, The John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, department of Civil engineering, report No 121, Standford: Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards, Geoscience Australia Racord 14

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2010) European Environment State and Outlook Report 2010. www.eea.europa.eu/soer. Accessed 1 Dec 2010

  • EM-DAT (2010) The International Disaster Database, Centre for research on Epidemiology of Disasters—CRED. www.emdat.be. Accessed 10 Sep 2010

  • EMSA (2010) European Maritime Safety Agency EMSA. www.emsa.europa.eu. Accessed 10 Sep 2010

  • Erdik M (1991) Urban Earthquake Hazard, Risk and Mitigation, Invited Paper, Proc., 5th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 23–26, University of Karlsruhe, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grecu B, Popa M, Radulian M (2003) Seismic ground motion characteristics in the Bucharest area: Sedimentary cover versus seismic source control. Rom Rep Phys 55:511–520

    Google Scholar 

  • HAZUS 99 (2000) Natural Loss Estimation Methodology, available online at www.fema.gov/hazus/hazus99.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2010

  • Herwijnen M van (1999) Spatial Decision Support for Environmental Management. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, p 274

    Google Scholar 

  • ITC (2001) ILWIS 3.0 Academic—User’s Guide. Enschede, Netherlands, ITC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL II, Schiller AMD, Hsieh W (2005) Vulnerability to global environmental change. In: Kasperson JX, Turner BLII, Schiller AMD, Hsieh W (eds) Social contours of risk. II: risk analysis corporations and the globalization of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 245–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Lungu D, Cornea T, Aldea A, Zaicenco A (1997) Basic representation of seismic action. In: Lungu D, Mazzolani F, Savidis S (eds) Design of structures in seismic zones: Eurocode 8- Worked examples. TEMPUS PHARE CM Project 01198: Implementing of structural Eurocodes in Romanian civil engineering standards. Bridgeman Ltd., Timisoara, pp 1–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Lungu D, Aldea A, Moldoveanu T, Ciugudean V, Stefanica M (1999) Near-surface geology and dynamic properties of soil layers in Bucharest. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard, and risk mitigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C, Cornea T, Petrescu F, Vacareanu R (2004b) RISK-UE—Bucharest Synthesis Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N (1978) The Vrancea earthquake of March 4, 1977 and the seismic microzonation of Bucharest, Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. Microzonation, San Francisco, 1, 399–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N, Radulian M (1999) Seismic microzoning of Bucharest (Romania): a critical review. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D, Novak O (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard, and risk mitigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu G (2004) Site conditions and predominant period of seismic motion in the Bucharest urban area. Rev Roum Geophysique 48:37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu G (2007) Geological, geophysical and seismological criteria for local response evaluation in Bucharest urban area. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:367–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu G, Ionescu V (2008) Integrated research of the geological, geophysical and seismological data for local response evaluation in Bucharest urban area, Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, pp. 136

    Google Scholar 

  • Mărmureanu G, Cioflan CO, Mărmureanu A (2010) Studies on local seismic hazard (microzonation) of the Bucharest metropolitan area. Seismic microzonation map. Ed. Tehnopress, Bucharest (in Romanian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouroux P, Le Brun B (2007) Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):323–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munich Re Group (2001) Annual report: how much risk can the world take? Munich, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Oncescu MC, Marza VI, Rizescu M, Popa M (1999) The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 984-1997. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D, Novak O (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard and risk mitigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 43–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF (1985) Synthetic seismograms: the Rayleigh waves modal summation. J Geophys 58:125–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF, Romanelli F, Vaccari F (2001) Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory and applications to the seismic zonation. Adv Geophys (Academic press) 43:1–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF, Irikura K, Kouteva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (eds) (2011) Advanced seismic hazard assessment. Pure Appl Geophys 168. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0179-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker D, Mitchell JK (1995) Disaster vulnerability of megacities. GeoJournal 37(3):295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M (2007) The vulnerability of cities. Natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscasn Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Radulian M, Mândrescu N, Grecu B (2006) Seismic ground motion variability over the Bucharest area. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 41(3–4):361–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashed T, Weeks J (2002) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 2003. 17(6):547–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risk Newsletter (1987) “Defining ‘Risk’”, editorial note, Risk Newsletter, 7(3):5

    Google Scholar 

  • RISK-UE (2001–2004) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns, Fifth Framework Programme of the European Commission, 2000–2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli F, Bing Z, Vaccari F, Panza GF (1996) Analytical computations of reflection and transmission coupling coefficients for Love waves. Geophys J Int 125:132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandi SH (convener) (1986) Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for Individual Structures and for Systems. Report of EAEE WG 5/10 to the 8-th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderbauer S, Ehrlich D (2004) Risk, hazard and people’s vulnerability to natural hazards. A Review of Definitions, Concepts and Data. European Commission Joint Research Centre. EUR 21410 EN

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP (2004) Understanding industrial ecology and the multiple dimensions of sustainability. In: O’Brien and Gere Engineers (eds) Strategic environmental management. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Segudovic H (2006) Qualitative risk analysis method comparison, INFIGO Information Security, available online at http://www.infigo.hr/files/INFIGO-MD-2006-06-01-RiskAsses_ENG.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2011

  • Thywissen K (2006) Core terminology of disaster reduction. Measuring vulnerability to Natural Hazards Towards disaster resilient societies. J. Birkmann, UN University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler WR (1970) A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker BE, Erdik M, Hwang CN (eds) (1994) Issues in Urban earthquake risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL, Kasperson RE (2003) A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). 100(14), 8074–8079

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyagunov S, Grünthal G, Wahlström R, Stempniewski L, Zschau J (2006) Seismic risk mapping for Germany. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:573–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uitto JI (1998) The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities. Appl Geography 18(1):7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP—Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. In: Pelling M, Maskrey A, Ruiz P, Hall L (eds) A global report. John S. Swift Co

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargas LG (1990) An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 48:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlström R, Tyagunov S, Grünthal G, Stempniewski L, Zschau J, Müller M (2004) Seismic risk analysis for Germany: methodology and preliminary results. In: Malzahn D, Plapp T (eds) Disasters and society—from hazard assessment to risk reduction. Logos Verlag Berlin, pp 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel F, Bendimerad F, Sinha R (2007) Megacities—megarisks. Nat Hazards 42:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westen C von (ed) (2010) Multi-hazard risk Assessment, Distance education course, Guide book. Enschede, Netherlands, United Nations University—ITC School on Disaster Geoinformation Management (UNU-ITC DGIM)

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman R (1986) Are the soil depositions in Mexico City unique? The Mexico earthquakes -1985. Factors involved and lessons learned. In: Cassaro MA, Romero EM, editors. Proceedings of the international conference. Mexico City: ASCE; 1986. p 163–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disaster. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong Y, Zeng GM, Chen GQ, Tang L, Wang KL, Huang DY (2007) Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecolog Model 2009:97–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoe C (2002) Trade-off analysis planning and procedures guidebook. Prepared for Institute for Water Resources. U.S. Army Corps and Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusuff RM, Yee KP, Hashmi MSJ (2001) A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robot Comput-integr Manuf 17(5):421–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaharia B, Radulian M, Popa M, Grecu B, Bǎlǎ A, Tǎtaru D (2008) Estimation of the local response using Nakamura method for Bucharest area. Rom Rep Phys 60(1):131–144

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out as a component of the HERA and REVEAL research projects financed by Romania National Authority of Scientific Research, having Prof. Dr. I. Armaş as PI. We are grateful to Dr. Al. Gavriş for useful suggestions and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, 1 Balcescu Bd., Sector 1, 010041, Bucharest, Romania

    Iuliana Armaş

  2. National Institute for Earth Physics, Măgurele, 12 Călugăreni str., 077125, Ilfov, Romania

    Mircea Rădulian

Authors
  1. Iuliana Armaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mircea Rădulian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iuliana Armaş .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urbanism, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania

    Maria Bostenaru Dan

  2. Department of Geomorphology Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Iuliana Armas

  3. Civil Protection Department, Seismic and Volcanic Risk Office, Rome, Italy

    Agostino Goretti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Armaş, I., Rădulian, M. (2014). Spatial Multi-Criteria Risk Assessment of Earthquakes from Bucharest, Romania. In: Bostenaru Dan, M., Armas, I., Goretti, A. (eds) Earthquake Hazard Impact and Urban Planning. Environmental Hazards. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7981-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation